THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN, Proof Of A Environmentalist Movement Take Over To Bring U.S. Under World Government

The substance of these stratagems [for the weakening of the United States so itcan be more easily merged into a global government based on the model ofcollectivism] can be traced to a think-tank study released in 1966 called the Reportfrom Iron Mountain. Although the origin of the report is highly debated, the documentitself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under DefenseSecretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at thebase of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. The Hudson Institute wasfounded and directed by Herman Kahn, formerly of the Rand Corporation. BothMcNamara and Kahn were members of the CFR.The self-proclaimed purpose of the study was to explore various ways to“stabilize society.” Praiseworthy as that may sound, a reading of the Report soonreveals that the word society is used synonymously with the word government.Furthermore, the word stabilize is used as meaning to preserve and to perpetuate. It isclear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways agovernment can perpetuate itself in power, ways to control its citizens and preventthem from rebelling.It was stated at the beginning of the Report that morality was not an issue. Thestudy did not address questions of right or wrong; nor did it deal with such concepts asfreedom or human rights. Ideology was not an issue, nor patriotism, nor religiousprecepts. Its sole concern was how to perpetuate the existing government.The Report said:Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of humanlife, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest “good” for the greatestnumber, the “dignity” of the individual, the desirability of maximum health andlongevity, and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for thejustification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We haveattempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principalcharacteristic of which is not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, inWhitehead’s words, “…it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic andmoral judgments.”1 The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or thethreat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of governmentwithout complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost anyburden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion andpatriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the nameof victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace,people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. Whenthey become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No governmenthas long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been anindispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” These are the report’s exact words:The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations asindependent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stablepolitical structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtainacquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of warprovides the sense of external necessity without which no government can longremain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where thefailure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, bythe forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrativeelements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal politicalstabilizer…. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and ithas insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual warpowers inherent in the concept of nationhood.2

A NEW DEFINITION OF PEACEThe report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where theold formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create aworld government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a worldarmy, a condition which will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as wehave used it in the following pages, … implies total and general disarmament.”3 Underthat scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not havethe capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army againstrenegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations,and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property isdestroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and thebombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitablesubstitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could theworld government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide ananswer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute forwar unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2)represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse forcompulsory service to the government.

A SOPHISTICATED FORM OF SLAVERYOn the subject of compulsory service, the Report explains that one of theadvantages of standing armies is that they provide a place for the government to putantisocial and dissident elements of society. In the absence of war, these forced-laborbattalions would be told they are fighting poverty or cleaning up the planet orbolstering the economy or serving the common good in some other fashion. Everyteenager would be required to serve – especially during those years in which youngpeople are most rebellious against authority. Older people, too, would be drafted as ameans of working off tax payments and fines. Dissidents would face heavy fines for“hate crimes” and politically incorrect attitudes so, eventually, they would all be in theforced-labor battalions. The Report says:We will examine … the time-honored use of military institutions to provideanti-social elements with an acceptable role in the social structure. … The currenteuphemistic clichés – “juvenile delinquency” and “alienation” – have had theircounterparts in every age. In earlier days these conditions were dealt with directly bythe military without the complications of due process, usually through press gangs oroutright enslavement. …Most proposals that address themselves, explicitly or otherwise, to the postwarproblem of controlling the socially alienated turn to some variant of the Peace Corpsor the so-called Job Corps for a solution. The socially disaffected, the economicallyunprepared, the psychologically uncomfortable, the hard-core “delinquents,” theincorrigible “subversives,” and the rest of the unemployable are seen as somehowtransformed by the disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into moreor less dedicated social service workers. …Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is thereintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and politicalprocesses, of slavery. … It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticatedform of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace.As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemizedform of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first stepwould be the adoption of some form of “universal” military service.4

BLOOD GAMESThe Report considered ways in which the public could be preoccupied withnon-important activities so that it would not have time to participate in political debateor resistance. Recreation, trivial game shows, pornography, and situation comediescould play an important role, but blood games were considered to be the mostpromising of all the options. Blood games are competitive events between individualsor teams that are sufficiently violent in nature to enable the spectators to vicariouslywork off their frustrations. As a minimum, these events must evoke a passionate teamloyalty on the part of the fans and must include the expectation of pain and injury onthe part of the players. Even better for their purpose is the spilling of blood and thepossibility of death. The common man has a morbid fascination for violence andblood. Crowds gather to chant “Jump! Jump!” at the suicidal figure on a hotel roof.Cars slow to a near stop on the highway to gawk at broken bodies next to a collision.A schoolyard fight instantly draws a circle of spectators. Boxing matches and footballgames and hockey games and automobile races are telecast daily, attracting millionsof cheering fans who give rapt attention to each moment of danger, each angry blowto the face, each broken bone, each knockout, each carrying away of the unconsciousor possibly dying contestant. In this fashion, their anger at “society” is defused andfocused, instead, on the opposing team. The emperors of Rome devised the Circusesand gladiator contests and public executions by wild beasts for precisely that purpose.Before jumping to the conclusion that such concepts are absurd in moderntimes, recall that during the 1985 European soccer championship in Belgium, thespectators became so emotionally involved in the contest that a bloody riot broke outin the bleachers leaving behind 38 dead and more that 400 injured. U.S. News &World Report gives this account:The root of the trouble: A tribal loyalty to home teams that surpasses anobsession and, say some experts, has become a substitute religion for many. Theworst offenders include members of gangs such as Chelsea’s Anti-Personnel Firm,made up of ill-educated young males who find in soccer rivalry an escape fromboredom.Still, the British do not have a patent on soccer violence. On May 26, eightpeople were killed and more than 50 injured in Mexico City,… a 1964 stadium riot inLima, Peru, killed more than 300 – and a hotly disputed 1969 match between ElSalvador and Honduras led to a week-long shooting war between the two countries,causing hundreds of casualties.The U.S. is criticized for the gridiron violence of its favorite sport, football, butoutbursts in the bleachers are rare because loyalties are spread among many sportsand national pride is not at stake. Said Thomas Tutko, professor of psychology atCalifornia’s San Jose State University: “In these other countries, it used to be theirarmies. Now it’s their competitive teams that stir passions.”5Having considered all the ramifications of blood games, The Report from IronMountain concluded that they were not an adequate substitute for war. It is true thatviolent sports are useful distracters and do, in fact, allow an outlet for boredom andfierce group loyalty, but their effect on the nation’s psyche could not match theintensity of war hysteria. Until a better alternative could be found, world governmentwould have to be postponed so that nations could continue to wage war.

FINDING A CREDIBLE GLOBAL THREATIn time of war, most citizens uncomplainingly accept their low quality of lifeand remain fiercely loyal to their leaders. If a suitable substitute for war is to be found,then it must also elicit that same reaction. Therefore, a new enemy must be found thatthreatens the entire world, and the prospects of being overcome by that enemy must bejust as terrifying as war itself. The Report is emphatic on that point:Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious;the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinelyformidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the “enemy” sufficient towarrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to the sizeand complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one ofunprecedented magnitude and frightfulness.6The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemywas that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but aninvented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it wasreal. The public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility wouldbe more important than truth.Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearfulenough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had neverexperienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact ofeveryday life.An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. Thereport said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Publicreaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not“credible.” Here is what the report had to say:Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a politicalsubstitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so wellsuited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealisticspace project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotlyargued that such a menace would offer the “last best hope of peace,” etc., by unitingmankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or fromouter space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-ourworldinvasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flyingsaucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so,they could hardly have been judged encouraging.This report was released in 1966 when the idea of an alien presence seemed farfetched to the average person. In the ensuing years, however, that perception haschanged. A growing segment of the population now believes that intelligent life formsmay exist beyond our planet and could be monitoring our own civilization. Whetherthat belief is right or wrong is not the issue here. The point is that a dramaticencounter with aliens shown on network television – even if it were to be entirelyfabricated by high-tech computer graphics or laser shows in the sky – could be used tostampede all nations into world government supposedly to defend the Earth frominvasion. On the other hand, if the aliens were perceived to have peaceful intent, analternative scenario would be to form world government to represent a unified humanspecies speaking with a single voice in some kind of galactic federation. Eitherscenario would be far more credible today than in 1966.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL-POLLUTION MODELThe final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment.This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related toobservable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would bebased partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showingend-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in thesepredictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform.It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make thepredictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy,more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. Themasses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, andbureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to saveMother Earth.” A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollutionpossibly could replace war as justification for social control.Did The Report from Iron Mountain really say that? It certainly did – and muchmore. Here are just a few of the pertinent passages:When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternateenemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction.It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of humanconcern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would beinsufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the dangerto society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carrythe weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actualsacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment caneventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as theprincipal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of theprincipal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at firstglance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealtwith only through social organization and political power. …It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for thispurpose. … But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent yearsthat it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoningcould be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.However unlikely some of the possible alternative enemies we have mentionedmay seem, we must emphasize that one must be found of credible quality andmagnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration.It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented.8

AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORTThe Report from Iron Mountain states that it was produced by a Special StudyGroup of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret and that it was notintended to be made public. One member of the group, however, felt the Report wastoo important to be kept under wraps. He was not in disagreement with itsconclusions. He merely believed that more people should read it. He delivered hispersonal copy to Leonard Lewin, a well-known author and columnist who, in turn,negotiated its publication by Dial Press. It was then reprinted by Dell Publishing.This was during the Johnson Administration, and the President’s SpecialAssistant for National Security Affairs was CFR member Walt Rostow. Rostow wasquick to announce that the report was a spurious work. Herman Kahn, CFR director ofthe Hudson Institute, said it was not authentic. The Washington Post – which wasowned and run by CFR member Katharine Graham – called it “a delightful satire.”Time magazine, founded by CFR-member Henry Luce, said it was a skillful hoax.8 Ibid., pp. 66-67, 70-71. When the Report was written, terrorism had not yet been considered as a substitute for war. Since then, it has become the most useful of them all.Then, on November 26, 1967, the Report was reviewed in the book section of theWashington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for Harvardprofessor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith, who also had been a member of theCFR, said that he knew firsthand of the Report’s authenticity because he had beeninvited to participate in it. Although he was unable to be part of the official group, hewas consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project a secret.Furthermore, while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about theReport, he agreed totally with its conclusions. He wrote:As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, sowould I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservations relate only to thewisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.9Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith wenteven further and jokingly admitted that he was “a member of the conspiracy.”10That, however, did not settle the issue. The following day, Galbraith backed off.When asked about his “conspiracy” statement, he replied: “For the first time sinceCharles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation. … Nothing shakes myconviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce.”11The reporter who conducted the original interview was embarrassed by theallegation and did further research. Six days later, this is what he reported:Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. Thelatest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (taperecorded) interchange:Interviewer: “Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from IronMountain?”Galbraith: “I was in general a member of the conspiracy but I was not theauthor. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword – Mr.Lewin.”12So, on at least three occasions, Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity ofthe Report but denied that he wrote it. Then who did? Was it Leonard Lewin, after all?In 1967 he said he did not. In 1972 he said that he did. Writing in The New York TimesBook Review Lewin explained: “I wrote the `Report,’ all of it. … What I intended wassimply to pose the issues of war and peace in a provocative way.”But wait! A few years before that, columnist William F. Buckley told the NewYork Times that he was the author. That statement was undoubtedly made tongue-incheek,but who and what are we to believe? Was it written by Herman Kahn, JohnKenneth Galbraith, Dean Rusk, Clare Booth Luce, Leonard Lewin, or William F.Buckley? In the final analysis, it makes little difference. The important point is that TheReport from Iron Mountain, whether written as a think-tank study or a political satire,explains the reality that surrounds us. Regardless of its origin, the concepts presentedin it are now being implemented in almost every detail. All one has to do is hold theReport in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other to realize that every majortrend in American life is conforming to the blueprint. So many things that otherwiseare incomprehensible suddenly become clear: foreign aid, wasteful spending, thedestruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, theapparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, a world bank, a worldmoney, the surrender of national independence through treaties, and the ecologyhysteria. The Report from Iron Mountain is an accurate summary of the plan that hasalready created our present. It is now shaping our future.

ENVIRONMENTALISM A SUBSTITUTE FOR WARIt is beyond the scope of this study to prove that currently accepted predictionsof environmental doom are based on exaggerated and fraudulent “scientific studies.”But such proof is easily found if one is willing to look at the raw data and theassumptions upon which the projections are based. More important, however, is thequestion of why end-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or nostudies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR-controlled media; or why radicalenvironmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs arelavishly funded by CFR-dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the verygroups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountainanswers those questions.As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s whatpeople can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality. Thereis just enough truth in the fact of environmental pollution to make predictions ofplanetary doom in the year two-thousand-something seem believable. All that isrequired is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. Peopleof the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries,dramas, feature films, ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches,13 “Report from Iron Mountain,” New Your Times, March 19, 1968, p. 8.seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians arenow elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressedconcern for the environment and a promise to clamp down on those nasty industries.No one questions the damage done to the economy or the nation. It makes nodifference when the very planet on which we live is sick and dying. Not one in athousand will question that underlying premise. How could it be false? Look at all themovie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.While the followers of the environmental movement are preoccupied withvisions of planetary doom, let us see what the leaders are thinking. The first Earth Daywas proclaimed on April 22, 1970, at a “Summit” meeting in Rio de Janeiro, attendedby environmentalists and politicians from all over the world. A publication widelycirculated at that meeting was entitled the Environmental Handbook. The main themeof the book was summarized by a quotation from Princeton Professor Richard A. Falk,a member of the CFR. Falk wrote that there are four interconnected threats to theplanet – wars of mass destruction, overpopulation, pollution, and the depletion ofresources. Then he said: “The basis of all four problems is the inadequacy of thesovereign states to manage the affairs of mankind in the twentieth century.”14 TheHandbook continued the CFR line by asking these rhetorical questions: “Are nationstatesactually feasible, now that they have power to destroy each other in a singleafternoon?… What price would most people be willing to pay for a more durable kindof human organization – more taxes, giving up national flags, perhaps the sacrifice ofsome of our hard-won liberties?”15In 1989, the CFR-owned Washington Post published an article written by CFRmember George Kennan in which he said: “We must prepare instead for … an agewhere the great enemy is not the Soviet Union, but the rapid deterioration of ourplanet as a supporting structure for civilized life.”16On March 27, 1990, in the CFR-controlled New York Times, CFR memberMichael Oppenheimer wrote: “Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation andoverpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. … as thecold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international securityconcern.”The New York Times has been one of the principal means by which CFR policies are inserted into the mainstream of public opinion. The paper was purchased in 1896 by Alfred Ochs, with financial backing from CFR pioneer J.P. Morgan, Rothchild agent August Belmont, and Jacob Schiff, a CFR member, Lester Brown, heads up another think tank called theWorldwatch Institute. In the Institute’s annual report, entitled State of the World 1991,Brown said that “the battle to save the planet will replace the battle over ideology asthe organizing theme of the new world order.”18In the official publication of the 1992 Earth Summit, we find this: “The worldcommunity now faces together greater risks to our common security through ourimpacts on the environment than from traditional military conflicts with one another.”How many times does it have to be explained? The environmental movementwas created by the CFR. It is a substitute for war that they hope will become theemotional and psychological foundation for world government.

HUMANITY ITSELF IS THE TARGETThe Club of Rome is a group of global planners who annually release end-ofworldscenarios based on predictions of overpopulation and famine. Theirmembership is international, but the American roster includes such well-known CFRmembers as Jimmy Carter, Harlan Cleveland, Claiburne Pell, and Sol Linowitz. Theirsolution to overpopulation? A world government to control birth rates and, ifnecessary, euthanasia. That is a gentle word for the deliberate killing of the old, theweak, and of course the uncooperative. Following the same reasoning advanced atIron Mountain, the Club of Rome has concluded that fear of environmental disastercould be used as a substitute enemy for the purpose of unifying the masses behind itsprogram. In its 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution, we find this:In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea thatpollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fitthe bill. … All these dangers are caused by human intervention. … The real enemy,then, is humanity itself.19Collectivist theoreticians have always been fascinated by the possibility ofcontrolling population growth. It excites their imaginations because it is the ultimatebureaucratic plan. If the real enemy is humanity itself, as the Club of Rome says, thenpartner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. It is now owned by CFR member Arthur Sulzberger, who is also thepublisher, and it is staffed by numerous CFR editors and columnists.Humanity itself must become the target. Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell expressedit thus: I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can bekept from increasing. … War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto beendisappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove moreeffective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in everygeneration, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. …A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is world government.… It will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. Ifthis is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences and famines, it will demand apowerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to thevarious nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishments ofthe authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population, it should not on thataccount receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population wouldtherefore be very compelling.21Very compelling, indeed. These quiet-spoken collectivists are not kiddingaround. For example, one of the most visible “environmentalists” and advocate ofpopulation control was Jacques Cousteau. Interviewed by the United NationsUNESCO Courier in November of 1991, Cousteau spelled it out. He said:What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It is a wonderful ideabut perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement itwe may jeopardize the future of our species. It’s terrible to have to say this. Worldpopulation must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people perday. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it, but it is just asbad not to say it.

GORBACHEV BECOMES AN ECOLOGY WARRIORWe can now understand how Mikhail Gorbachev, formerly the leader of one ofthe most repressive governments the world has known, became head of a neworganization called the International Green Cross, which supposedly is dedicated toenvironmental issues. Gorbachev has never denounced collectivism, only the label ofa particular brand of collectivism called Communism. His real interest is not ecologybut world government with himself assured a major position in the collectivist powerstructure. In a public appearance in Fulton, Missouri, he praised the Club of Rome, ofwhich he is a member, for its position on population control.Then he said:One of the worst of the new dangers is ecological. … Today, global climaticshifts; the greenhouse effect; the “ozone hole”; acid rain; contamination of theatmosphere, soil and water by industrial and household waste; the destruction of theforests; etc. all threaten the stability of the planet.23Gorbachev proclaimed that global government was the answer to these threatsand that the use of government force was essential. He said: “I believe that the newworld order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its SecurityCouncil create structures … authorized to impose sanctions and make use of othermeasures of compulsion.”Here is an arch criminal who fought his way up through the ranks of the SovietCommunist Party, became the protégé of Yuri Andropov, head of the dreaded KGB,was a member of the USSR’s ruling Politburo throughout the Soviet invasion ofAfghanistan, and who was selected by the Politburo in 1985 as the supreme leader ofworld Communism. All of this was during one of the Soviet’s most dismal periods ofhuman-rights violations and subversive activities against the free world. Furthermore,he ruled over a nation with one of the worst possible records of environmentaldestruction. At no time while he was in power did he ever say or do anything to showconcern over planet Earth.All that is now forgotten. Gorbachev has been transformed by the CFRdominatedmedia into an ecology warrior. He is calling for world government andtelling us that such a government will use environmental issues as justification forsanctions and other “measures of compulsion.” We cannot say that we were notwarned.

U.S. BRANDED AS ECOLOGICAL AGGRESSORThe use of compulsion is an important point in these plans. People in theindustrialized nations are not expected to cooperate in their own demise. They willhave to be forced. They will not like it when their food is taken for global distribution.They will not approve when they are taxed by a world authority to finance foreignpolitical projects. They will not voluntarily give up their cars or resettle into smallerhouses or communal barracks to satisfy the resource-allocation quotas of a UNagency. Club-of-Rome member Maurice Strong states the problem:In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against therest of the world. … At the military level, the United States is the custodian. At theenvironmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk. … One of the worstproblems in the United States is energy prices – they’re too low. …It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluentmiddle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozenand `convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric householdappliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing …are not sustainable.Mr. Strong’s remarks were enthusiastically received by world environmentalleaders, but they prompted this angry editorial response in the Arizona Republic:Translated from eco-speak, this means two things: (1) a reduction in thestandard of living in Western nations through massive new taxes and regulations, and(2) a wholesale transfer of wealth from industrialized to under-developed countries.The dubious premise here is that if the U.S. economy could be reduced to, say, thesize of Malaysia’s, the world would be a better place. … Most Americans probablywould balk at the idea of the U.N. banning automobiles in the U.S.26Who is this Maurice Strong who sees the United States as the environmentalaggressor against the world? Does he live in poverty? Does he come from a backwardcountry that is resentful of American prosperity? Does he himself live in modestcircumstances, avoiding consumption in order to preserve our natural resources? Noneof the above. He is one of the wealthiest men in the world. He lives and travels ingreat comfort. He is a lavish entertainer. In addition to having great personal wealthderived from the oil industry in Canada – which he helped nationalize – MauriceStrong was the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio; head of the 1972UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm; the first Secretary-General ofthe UN Environment Program; president of the World Federation of United Nations;co-chairman of the World Economic Forum; member of the Club of Rome; trustee ofthe Aspen Institute; and a director of the World Future Society. That is probably morethan you wanted to know about this man, but it is necessary in order to appreciate theimportance of what follows.

A PLOT FOR ECONOMIC CRISISMaurice Strong believes – or says that he believes – the world’s ecosystems canbe preserved only if the affluent nations of the world can be disciplined into loweringtheir standard of living. Production and consumption must be curtailed. To bring thatabout, those nations must submit to rationing, taxation, and political domination byworld government. They will probably not do that voluntarily, he says, so they willhave to be forced. To accomplish that, it will be necessary to engineer a globalmonetary crisis which will destroy their economic systems. Then they will have nochoice but to accept assistance and control from the UN.This strategy was revealed in the May, 1990, issue of West magazine, publishedin Canada. In an article entitled “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” journalist DanielWood described his week-long experience at Strong’s private ranch in southernColorado. This ranch has been visited by such CFR notables as David Rockefeller,Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger, founder of the World Bank Robert McNamara,and the presidents of such organizations as IBM, Pan Am, and Harvard.During Wood’s stay at the ranch, the tycoon talked freely aboutenvironmentalism and politics. To express his own world view, he said he wasplanning to write a novel about a group of world leaders who decided to save theplanet. As the plot unfolded, it became obvious that it was based on real people andreal events. Wood continues the story:Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, theWorld Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs,prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attendmeetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he thensays: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principalrisk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is tosurvive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impacton the environment. Will they do it? … The group’s conclusion is `no.’ the richcountries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the groupdecides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? …“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bringabout an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists.They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodityand stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges andcomputers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock marketsfrom closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of theworld leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…”And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarettebutt out the window.I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking, this is Maurice Strong.He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the WorldEconomic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.Maurice Strong’s fanciful plot probably shouldn’t be taken too seriously, at leastin terms of a literal reading of future events. It is unlikely they will unfold in exactlythat manner – although it is not impossible. For one thing, it would not be necessary tohold the leaders of the industrialized nations at gun point. They would be the onesengineering this plot. Leaders from Third-World countries do not have the means tocause a global crisis. That would have to come from the money centers in New York,London, or Tokyo. Furthermore, the masterminds behind this thrust for globalgovernment have always resided in the industrialized nations. They have come fromthe ranks of the CFR in America and from other branches of the InternationalRoundtable in England, France, Belgium, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere. They are theideological descendants of Cecil Rhodes and they are fulfilling his dream.It is not important whether or not Maurice Strong’s plot for global economiccollapse is to be taken literally. What is important is that men like him are thinkingalong those lines. As Wood pointed out, they are in a position to do it. Or somethinglike it. If it is not this scenario, they will consider another one with similarconsequences. If history has proven anything, it is that men with financial andpolitical power are quite capable of heinous plots against their fellow men. They havelaunched wars, caused depressions, and created famines to suit their personal agendas.We have little reason to believe that the world leaders of today are more saintly thantheir predecessors.Furthermore, we must not be fooled by pretended concern for Mother Earth.The call-to-arms for saving the planet is a gigantic ruse. There is just enough truth toenvironmental pollution to make the show “credible,” as The Report from IronMountain phrased it, but the end-of-earth scenarios which drive the movementforward are bogus. The real objective in all of this is world government, the ultimatedoomsday mechanism from which there can be no escape. Destruction of theeconomic strength of the industrialized nations is merely a necessary prerequisite forensnaring them into the global web. The thrust of the current ecology movement isdirected totally to that end.

*****This is taken from Chapter 24 ofThe Creature from Jekyll Island:A Second Look at the Federal Reserve,27 “The Wizard of Baca Grande.” By Daniel Wood, West magazine, May 1990, p. 35.17

Share this:

Like this:

Related

One comment

The Report was written by Leonard Lewin, who I interviewed on WBAI, along with E.L. Doctorow, Victor Navasky, Noam Chomsky and John Kenneth Galbraith, all of whom were in on the hoax when the book was published. Of course, the ideas and dry sense of humor Lewin displays throughout the book seem plausible because they ARE plausible. None the less, people should stop saying it is a real think tank study, which was leaked. The Report was written by Leonard Lewin. Lewin wrote another book called Triage, about a group of men who were killing people who they felt were only a negative for society, such as drug dealers, etc. (a la Dexter). As with Report, Triage is plausible, and written by Lewin.